• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

Porpoise of Life said:
Seriously? Because if you use the motto to make a claim about on which principles the country was founded, then your argument would kind of fall flat when you find out the motto is about 180 years younger than the country...
Click to expand...

Nope, the motto "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with the founding as it was added later.

My views on why the US was founded on Christian principles are outlined above.

"In God We Trust" does say something about the US though. Even the US Supreme Court has decided that the US recognizes that our "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being".........How's that to debunk a secular claim?
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I suppose you could argue that a Constitution that fails to mention specifically any certain religion to be the work of secular men but, you'd be wrong. While creating their ideas for a perfect Government, freedom of religion was by far one of the most important parts of the document. Creating a document that respects all forms of religion was the idea. Secularism would have had no mention of religion whatsoever. Even the date on the document hints to the founder's Christian principles, "In the Year of Our Lord"........
Click to expand...

OK, so in summary, there are no Christian principles embodied in the Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

(Seriously, the "the year of our Lord" thing is silly. I use "AD" all the time, and I'm freaking Jewish.)
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
If the male/mate is trying to prevent her, a swift kick in the testes is my immediate go to option. And I do love children....and thus only want them born to one or more loving parents who have the ability to care for them and nurture them properly.
Click to expand...

By that standard half of all kids of **** Outta luck


Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 10. Please do not disguise swear words in the public section
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cmikes said:
Slight derail from this train wreck of a thread, but this is a personal pet peeve of mine. One, obviously, there is no Christian principle that says that slaves were worth only 3/5s of a free person. Two, not all blacks were slaves and not all whites were free. There were a number of free blacks that fought with some of the founders to end slavery, just as there were plenty of white people that were sold into slavery or indentured servitude. And three, you do realize that the 3/5s rule was a compromise that only applied to Congressional apportionment? The pro-slavery states would have been loved to count their slaves as full people. They would have been thrilled to count their slaves as five people each, since it would have massively increased their power in Congress and made it that much harder to end slavery. It was the anti-slavery founders that made the quite obvious point that you can't claim that slaves aren't people but property in one breath, then claim that for the purposes of Congressional power that slaves should count as full people with all the rights of people with the next breath.


/derail
Click to expand...



:thumbsup:
 
Aepervius said:
Actually yours is YHWH. It is later in the new testament written as colloquially "God", but since you are using the old testament too...
Click to expand...

YHWH is just the phrase "I am who am", which is the only answer the deity returned to the question "who are you?" in the Old Testament. Cagey fellow (or lady), God refuses to divulge its actual name. Theology types imagine it's because the name of God could be used for performing magic and miracles. Personally, I think it's because God wrote some bad checks and is trying to avoid unwanted attention. Either that or God's real name is really embarrassing, like Gaylord or Trevor or Wayne or Kristal or Tiffani.
 
TragicMonkey said:
YHWH is just the phrase "I am who am", which is the only answer the deity returned to the question "who are you?" in the Old Testament. Cagey fellow (or lady), God refuses to divulge its actual name. Theology types imagine it's because the name of God could be used for performing magic and miracles. Personally, I think it's because God wrote some bad checks and is trying to avoid unwanted attention. Either that or God's real name is really embarrassing, like Gaylord or Trevor or Wayne or Kristal or Tiffani.
Click to expand...

I am who I am.......Popeye the sailor man.
 
Argumemnon said:
Seems like Judeo-Christian principles don't include freedom of choice. Or at least, not when it's inconvenient to the moral guardians.
Click to expand...

It all works out because the same people who interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean, ignoring all the bits that contradict their interpretation, also do the same with the Bible. Those people have enormous respect for documents, it's one of the ways you can tell they're so moral, they tell us.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Because viability is limited by current medical technology and has nothing to do with whether that unborn child has a right to live.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's because abotion laws have nothing to do with the right to live. They have everything to do with the right to choose.

And viability is a very important step: it means that the foetus is no longer strictly part of the mother's biological system. It is now an independant human life. I would think this would satisfy your need for a justification to give it the "right" to live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom